Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14518 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh Yadav Respondent :- Registrar General Allahabad High Court, Allahabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Goyal,Samir Sharma
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Mishra who appears for the contesting respondents.
This petition impugns a communication issued by the Registrar General of the Court addressed to all the District Judges on the subject of promotion of Class-IV employees to the Class-III cadre. The communication dated 09 February 2018 principally takes into consideration the amendment as made in the Uttar Pradesh State District Courts Service Rules 2013 and more specifically the first amendment to those rules promulgated on 21 June 2017. The petitioner had claimed promotion to the Class-III cadre on the strength of various Government Orders which had been issued and governed the services of employees working under the State Government. These Government Orders set apart a particular percentage of posts in the Class-III cadre to be filled by way of promotion from Class-IV employees working in the establishment of the State Government. It is his contention that despite existence of these Government Orders, the impugned communication has placed a stipulation that the reservation of seats in the Class-III cadre earmarked for being filled from amongst Class-IV employees would only apply to vacancies which occur after 21 June 2017. This Court finds itself unable to sustain the challenge as laid in light of the following submissions which have been addressed by Sri Ashish Mishra learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
Sri Mishra rightly points out that the U.P. State District Court Service Rules 2013 came to be promulgated on 04 July 2013. In terms of Rule 29 thereof Sri Mishra submits that all earlier statutory rules which governed matters or appointment, recruitment and promotion to the subordinate Civil Courts in the State of U.P. came to be repealed. Under the 2013 rules the post of Junior Assistants which is stated to be the solitary post falling in the Class-III cadre was mandated to be filled by way of direct recruitment only. The provision made in the 2013 rules and more particularly in Schedule-B have been amended with effect from 21 June 2017 and now prescribe that out of the total number of posts of Junior Assistants existing 20% shall be filled by way of promotion from amongst Group-D employees on the basis of 'Seniority Subject to Rejection of the Unfit'. According to Sri Mishra since no provision prior thereto existed in the 2013 rules, the Circular has rightly provided that the provisions so made would apply to vacancies which come into existence after 21 June 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to draw the attention of the Court to any statutory provision made in the 2013 rules which may have mandated a particular percentage of seats or posts in the Class-III cadre being set apart to be filled by way of promotion of Class-IV employees. Although learned counsel refers to the selection process undertaken at the District Court Gonda to contend that in 2014 also certain persons working in the Class-IV cadre were promoted in terms of the Government Orders applicable, this Court finds itself unable to grant any relief to the petitioner on this basis since the order passed by the District Judge Gonda would clearly not sustain in light of the statutory position which is noticed above.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has then contended that certain vacancies existed in 2013 itself and prior to the promulgation of the 2013 Rules. He submits that the right of the petitioner for consideration against those vacancies stands negatived in light of the impugned communication. This Court finds no merit in this submission firstly since undisputedly the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for the first time only in 2017. Secondly, the Court also notes that the earlier statutory rules which prevailed stood repealed upon promulgation of the 2013 rules. No vested right of the petitioner recognizable in law has been effected upon promulgation of the 2013 rules.
Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid facts, the Court finds no merit in the challenge raised. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 faraz